the meanest individual; and such unwarrantable judgment cannot fairly be deemed, even by the most zealous enemies of monarchy, less criminal, when applied to a sovereign. Hence it must be allowed, even by such as are of opinion that Charles deserved exemplary punishment, that his death was in fact a murder, being decreed and enforced by those who had no authority for the act, and who, in the whole proceeding, grossly shocked the public feelings, and testified a contemptuous disregard of the general sentiments of the people, in each of those three kingdoms which had an equal interest in the fate of this oppressed monarch. His death, therefore, was not, as some have termed it, a national crime; for the turpitude and disgrace of it rest only on the memories of those ambitious traitors and crafty incendiaries who composed the majority of the independent faction*."

We shall close our account of this reign with the character of the monarch, who fell a sacrifice to the turbulence and wickedness of a successful faction.

As, in our history of this important reign, we have exceeded the proportional limits of our plan, the very frequent occasions on which we have described the conduct and proceedings of Charles, render it unnecessary to extend, to any great length, our final remarks on his character. Though many portraits have been drawn of him, they have, in general, been delineated by the hand of party, and have therefore either been caricatures, or have exhibited too flattering a representation. Each of these extremes we shall endeavour to avoid.

The accomplishments which this monarch possessed were numerous and respectable. He had a competent acquaintance with the belles lettres; was conversant in many of the sciences; was a good judge of the polite arts; was far from being deficient in the knowledge of the principal mechanic arts; excelled in argument and dispu

In a neighbouring country, events have recently occurred, which bear some resemblance to our present subject. Lewis XVI. of France, like the unfortunate Charles, has been imprisoned, tried, condemned, and executed, by the misguided zeal of his subjects. In one respect, the rulers of the new republic of France adopted a more regular process against their degraded prince, than the English faction pursued with regard to Charles; for Lewis was arraigned before a national tribunal, formed by that democratic convention in whose hands the Gallic sovereignty is now lodged. This appearance of regularity, however, will not atone for the iniquity of that sentence which ordained his death. The delinquency of the French victim, like that of Charles, cannot justly be said to have been of that black complexion which, for the prevention of turbulence and anarchy, seems necessary as an adequate sanction to the exercise of popular jurisdiction over the person of a sovereign. We cannot, therefore, refrain from expressing our detestation of the frantic licentiousness and rancorous inhumanity of those republican upstarts, who, by the sacrifice of a mild and beneficent monarch, have outraged the feelings of every unprejudiced individual, and disgraced the French character in the eyes of every civilised and humane nation.'

tation;

tation; had a talent for literary composition; and, in short, was qua lified, by his abilities and attainments, to adorn and ennoble society. His private virtues, likewise, were eminently conspicuous. He was chaste, temperate, economical, devout, mild, friendly, modest, and humane.

With respect to his sincerity and honor, strong doubts have arisen. His enemies have represented him as one in whose most solemn engagements no confidence could be placed; but this censure is palpably overcharged, though we have sufficient grounds for affirming that he did not always scrupulously adhere to the dictates of good faith. Had he moved in a private sphere, he would probably, from his general regularity and strictness of deportment, have been distinguished by an adherence to his promises and declarations; but his monarchical prejudices sometimes perverted the integrity of his nature; and he seemed to think that the rules of policy, and the op position which he met with from his parliamentary subjects, furnished some excuse for his occasional violation of his professions and agreements. These, however, are not the sentiments of a man of unblemished honor; and, as his repeated infractions of the petition of right, which he had so solemnly confirmed, are sufficient proofs of: our assertion, without the mention of other cases which might be adduced, an easy refutation may be given to a remark of one of the panegyrists of Charles, importing, that, for reproaching this prince, with a disregard of good faith," the most malignant scrutiny of his conduct affords not any reasonable foundation."

His political maxims were too favorable to the ideas of the divine right and irresistible authority of kings. Educated at the feet of Gamaliel (as he expressed himself), he imbibed, in his earlier years, those romantic and superstitious notions of the royal prerogative which his father was so fond of inculcating, and which were not only absurd in themselves, but were particularly disgusting to that bold and li beral spirit which animated a great part of the nation at the time of his accession. Finding that the principles of liberty were so strongly prevalent, he would, if his sagacity and prudence had been unallayed by prejudice, have studiously avoided all encroachments on the pri-, vileges of his subjects; and, by thus entrenching himself within the boundaries of lawful prerogative, he would have had a better opportunity of repressing the licentiousness of the advocates of freedom, than by indulging himself in those exertions of power which inflamed the indignation of the public, and stimulated the demagogues to a wider range of design, and a greater boldness of enterprise. But, being confirmed in his high monarchical notions by the insinuations of ambitious statesmen and ecclesiastical adulators, and by the suggestions of a catholic queen, to whose counsels he was too obsequious, he neglected the rules of discretion, and, by incautious mea-, sures, opened the way to those popular commotions which produced an intestine war, and terminated in the destruction of his own person and the subversion of the monarchy.

In the adoption of political measures, he was, sometimes, timid and indecisive; at other times, by the prevalence of importunate advice, he was eager and precipitate. When he had given way to a rash

E 4

step,

step, he was quickly desirous of retracting it; and, even where he had not deviated into a hasty imprudence, but had resolved on a scheme in which spirit was requisite, he had not a sufficient degree of firmness and vigor to prevent him from yielding to the pertinacity of faction or the clamors of the multitude. He was also destitute of that insinuating address and those conciliatory manners which might have been usefully employed in soothing the rage of party, and in allaying the ardor of popular zeak'

Having dwelt so long on the earlier periods of this history, the limits of our Review necessarily compel us to be the less circumstantial in our account of the remaining volumes, though they are replete with great and important events.-We must pass over the circumstances which led to the abdication of James, and to the revolution in our government under William III. as well as the numerous transactions of his reign, and the still more brilliant occurrences which marked that of his successor. We cannot, however, omit to observe that the account of the Union with Scotland is fully, correctly, and satisfactorily stated; and that a minute detail of the disgraceful treaty of Utrecht is also given. Leaving the remaining events of this reign, and the narrative bestowed on the two succeeding monarchs, we shall close our remarks and extracts with an account of the transactions of the present reign; because, in the whole annals of our country, no period is equally remarkable for great and uncommon events, and none has met with fewer impartial historians.

Dr. Coote has allotted two books to the consideration of the reign of his present majesty. In the first, he discusses the subject from the death of George II. to the rupture between Great Britain and the American colonies.

No sovereign ever mounted a throne with more brilliant prospects than the reigning prince; his subjects witnessed his accession with feelings of unmixed joy; and they flattered themselves that, being a native of this country, he would not be influenced by Germanic attachments, which had borne too much sway over the minds of his immediate predecessors. Their foreign p ejudices had created disgust; and the people reasonably expected an alteration of measures, under a prince who had been born and educated in England.

The determination of prosecuting the war, commenced at the close of the late reign, till an honourable and secure peace could be obtained for Great Britain and her allies, was satisfactory to the majority of the nation; and the brilliant successes which crowned their exertions, in almost every corner of the globe, could not fail of rendering the king highly popular. On the other hand, the relinquishment of many of the advantages

tages which our arms had secured to us, by the treaty of Paris, produced no small dissatisfaction. It was remarked that the arts of the French were constantly attended with success, and that we generally lost by negociation what we obtained by arms.-The disgraceful circumstances belonging to the treaties of Utrecht and Paris originated in the selfish conduct of the ministers by whom they were concluded.-Harley, Bolingbroke, and their Tory friends, were influenced, in the peace which they accelerated, by the desire of continuing in office; and they surrendered the interests of their country to the gratification of their personal ambition. There is also strong reason for believing that the wish of continuing their sway in the administration induced the Earl of Bute, and his party, to submit to inadequate and dishonourable terms.-On the subject of the peace, Dr. Coote thus expresses himself:

To secure a parliamentary approbation of the treaty, the ministerial arts of corruption were exercised with extraordinary eager. ness, under the management of Fox; and the minister looked forward with hope, not however free from anxiety, to the sanction of the legislature for an inadequate peace. This approbation, perhaps, he would not have obtained, if Pitt, the duke of Newcastle, and other persons who had resigned, or had been dismissed for a want of servility, had been firmly united against the court. The strength of such a phalanx, being supported against the power of the favorite by the voice of the people, might have frustrated the views of the court, and branded the treaty with the ignominy of reprobation.

After the signature of the preliminaries, the parliament assembled. The king's speech stated, that his desire of relieving his people from the calamities and burthens of a complicated war, and of promoting their commercial and general prosperity, had irresistibly urged him to expedite a pacification; that, by the articles which had been adjusted, an immense territory was added to the British empire, and a good foundation was laid for the extension of commerce; that proper attention had been paid to the removal of all grounds of future dispute; and that the interests of the allies of this nation had not been neglected. It was also intimated in this harangue, that it would be adviseable to proceed without delay to the settlement of the new acquisi tions; and a hope was expressed, that such measures would be adopted, as should most effectually tend to the security of those countries, and to the improvement of commerce and navigation. The subjects by whose valor those conquests had been achieved, were recommended to the gratitude of parliament; and internal union was mentioned as a good preparative to the exercise of that economy which, after a series of heavy expences, became particularly necessary.

The usual addresses were soon followed by debates on the preliminaries. In the upper house, the terms of peace were condemned by the dukes of Newcastle and Grafton, earl Temple, and other peers, as inadequate to the reasonable expectations of the public, and as very favourable to the enemy: but the earls of Halifax and Mor

ton, the lord chancellor Henley, and lord Mansfield, defended them as honorable and advantageous; and the earl of Bute highly applauded himself for his concern in such a negociation. An address was voted (without a division), declaring the satisfaction of the peers" at the foundation laid by these articles for a treaty of peace, which would greatly redound to his majesty's honor, and the real benefit of his kingdoms."

In the house of commons, Charles Townshend was one of the speakers in favor of the peace; but he rather contended for the necessity of putting an end to the war in the present state of the nation, than for the adequacy of the preliminaries to the success of the British arms. The principal advocate for the inglorious convention was Fox, who maintained, that, as the encroachments of the French on our colonies had occasioned the war, the security of those settlements naturally formed the chief object of the negotiations for peace; that the extent of American dominion now ceded to Great Britain would establish the power of this kingdom beyond the reach of Gallic competition; that the advantage thus gained was in itself an indemnifica tion for the charges of the war; that, as we had succeeded in this essential point, it was reasonable to relax in other particulars; that the restitutions which had been stipulated were not only calculated for preventing a continuance of the war, but for procuring to our allies more favorable terms than they would otherwise have obtained; that the dread of oppressing the people with new burthens forcibly suggested the expediency of an immediate peace; and that a treaty much less advantageous than that which was now under parlia mentary consideration, would be preferable to the danger of prolonged hostilities.

The most distinguished opponent of Fox, on this occasion, was Pitt, who, though tortured with the gout, harangued the house for several hours in censure of the recent stipulations, and in vindication of the superiority of the terms on which he had insisted, considered with regard to the state of affairs at the time of his negotiation. He affirmed, that, by making too many concessions to the French in the case of the American fisheries, and by restoring too many of the islands in the West Indies, we enabled them to recover from their losses, and to excite renewed jealousy as a maritime and commercial power; that the Senegal settlement would be insecure without the possession of Goree; and that our restitutions to the French in the East Indies were instances of profuse generosity, or of inconsiderate weakness, as we retained nothing, though we had conquered every thing." He observed, that for Minorca, which was the only conquest that France had to restore, we relinquished our acquisitions in the East and West Indies, and in Africa; whereas Belle-Isle alone ought to be deemed an equivalent for that island. He mentioned Florida as a very inadequate return for the Havanna. Adverting to the German war, he intimated his opinion, that, by furnishing employment for the French in that scene of operations, we had been enabled to succeed in our Trans-Atlantic enterprises: "America (he said) had been conquered in Germany." He condemned the conduct of the court towards the king of Prussia, as base and treacher

ous;